flect on what we've learned and where we're going. america is now in the unenviable position of having no u.s.-derived means of sending humans in space, including to vital assets like the international space station. for the near future we will have to rely on our international partners -- namely russia. but that position will change. it must change, i would add. nasa is developing a successor to the shuttle based on important work done during the constellation program. in the burgeoning commercial sector, it is literally changing the way we access space as we speak. these complementary development tracks will build a more robust space exploration enterprise. as the presiding officer knows i have an interest in climbing mountains, as does he, and i've had the great good fortune to stand on the top of some of the world's highest mountains and i

believe it's in our nature's humans to explore and understand the world around you to keep stretching to achieve goals just beyond our grasp. mr. president, the shuttle has allowed us to reach farther than many other dreamed possible. but the end of the shuttle era is by no means the end of exploration. at its heart nasa is not about s it is aboutab people.s it r even after the shuttle assumes its rightful place in history of legions of engineers scientists, pilots and other adve ventures will carry its mission forward into the next phase of exploration. keeping that spirit intact would be a fitting tribute to the space shuttle. i wish the crew of sts-135 a is smooth and productive journey and abovesm all a safe return.anted mr. president before yield the floor i want to add anf additional note. in colorado of course we have 54 mountains that are overt.

14,000 feet. we have countless peaks below that lofty elevation but amongighe the 100 highest peaks in colorado we note columbia.which is named in the memory of the astronauts on the mission that ended tragically and we also have challenger..r both peaks in the top 100, both peaks linked by a high ridge and in the middle of that high ridge rid is kit carson peak which is a 14,000-foot mountain. i've had the good fortune tove stand them a summit of both ofstanon those peaks most recently columbia t peak. in april and the view is one that is worthy of us as u americans as we go forward.reat let's remember the great successes of the shuttle program and build on them as we move forward as americans exploring wld the world and exploring the universe. ii k know my colleague from florida shares my sentiments and i don't know that hei is on the floor to

speak but i look forward to workingar with him given the importance of the space industry and our space mission in this great state of florida and without mr. president i yield the floor. >> tonight on c-span2 president obama and congressional leaders talk about today's meetings on raising the debt ceiling. today the president met. for a recap we talked to her reporter reporter with roll call. >> steven business is a staff writer with roll call. what came out of today's meeting at the white house between the president and congressional leaders? >> well, you know our understanding from our reporting is the president brought out

three scenarios for getting through deal. one is sort of many scenarios where they come up with a couple of trillion dollars and in deficit cuts and that is the bare minimum they need to do to say they have done something to deal with the debt and then sort of a medium scenario about $3 trillion a big scenario 4 trillion. and you know for each level. and obama is clearly urging all of the congressional leaders of both parties to sort of move off their fixed positions and go for the bigger package, which would require more sacrifices from both sides. you know, the other thing that has been sort of hitting capitol hill today is that the president is talking about

including social security and this package. that is something that all of the democrats have opposed particularly senate majority leader harry reid. >> have democrats commented on that after the meeting today? >> we have gotten sort of mixed signals from democrats on that. you know you have -- it is sort of interesting, the democrats that were in the room are divided on the question. harry reid and pelosi have been opposed to things like raising the retirement age or tweaking benefits, while steny hoyer, the number two democrat in the house and dick durbin, the number two democrat in the senate have both been willing to entertain things like restructuring benefits and potentially tweaking the retirement age. so you know, it is going to be interesting to see if social security can stay as part of this package and whether obama can keep his face if he starts

taking on these in a way that maybe they hadn't been expecting. you sort of sonic counterattack today from some of the liberals in congress, people like senator sanders, independent from vermont came to the floor not too long ago blasting the idea that benefits might be cut and the retirement age might be extended or anything like that particularly if taxes aren't raised on the rich. >> what about the tax issue? what have you heard came out of that meeting on raising the taxes or increasing these revenue raisers? >> it looks as there is no big breakthrough today. the staff is going to meet over the next few days to see what they can sort of cobble together and present to the same group of principles on sunday night or sunday evening. and you know, we have heard from various senators that there may be ways to sort of finesse the

revenue question by including sweeteners like extending aft relief, maybe even extending some tax cuts for the middle class for the bush era tax cuts so that you could say somehow that the overall package is not a tax increase or is not much of one, and you know that potentially could get some support from some republicans that i talked to who are you know interested in being able to say that this is not a tax increase but understand that democrats need to have something to walk away with on revenue or else it will be hard to come up with a big deal. >> you are reporting this sunday and the meeting is expected to be a long one correct? >> yeah. i think what we have heard is that participants have been told to dress comfortably because it might not take -- it is not going to be a short meeting like this one was. it is potentially one where they stay until they have a framework for a deal.

president obama is clearly ramping up the pressure to get a deal done in the next week or at least a framework for one. you know they have sort of set this july 22 deadline as opposed to august 2 because if it takes a couple of weeks to draft the legislation and get it through the process here you will get it through one chamber and in the other chamber and if there are any amendments that passed it gets very confiscated very quickly. so they want to have a deal as soon as possible and you know it is going to be interesting gut check moment here. you know i have heard talk today that maybe this could be certainly from republicans that this could be a moment for obama to sort of do what president clinton did with welfare reform and you know work with republicans, give the most of what they want. if he can get a deal, potentially do something he can take to the voters next year and say hey i did something major to cut the deficit and i worked with the republicans etc. etc. are go and you know republicans

say that they think they got kind of deal would help his re-election but they. >> an update from steven dennis said roll call. read his work a roll call.com. thanks for joining us. >> it is a good to be here. [inaudible conversations] >> hello everybody. i'm going to make a very brief statement. i just completed a meeting with all the congressional leaders from both chambers, from both parties and i have to say that i thought it was a very constructive meeting. people were frank. we discussed the various options available to us. everybody reconfirmed the importance of completing our work and raising the debt limit ceiling so that full faith and

credit of the united states of united states of america is not impaired. what we have decided was that staff as well as leadership will be working during the weekend and that i will reconvene congressional leaders here on sunday with the expectation that at that point, the parties will at least know where each other's bottom lines are and we will hopefully be in a position to start engaging in the hard bargaining necessary to get a deal done. i want to emphasize that nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. and the parties are still far apart on a wide range of issues but again, i thought that all the leaders here came in a spirit of calm for mines and a spirit of wanting to solve problems on behalf of the

american people. everybody acknowledged that the issue of our debt and our deficit is something that needs to be tackled now. everybody acknowledged that in order to do that, democrats and republicans are going to be required in each chamber. everybody acknowledged that we have to get this done before the hard deadline of august 2 to make sure that america does not default for the first time on its obligations. and, everybody acknowledged that there is going to be pain involves politically on all sides, but our biggest obligation is to make sure that we are doing the right thing by the american people creating an environment in which we can grow the economy and make sure that more and more people are being put back to work. so i want to thank all the leaders. i thought it was a very constructive meeting and i will be seeing them back here on

sunday. a lot of work will be done between now and then. all right? >> house minority leader nancy pelosi one of the participants in today's white house meeting said house democrats would not vote for deficit reduction deal that cuts social security or medicare. but she admitted that she did not declare that position in the meeting. this is -- [inaudible conversations] >> hello everyone. good afternoon. our regularly scheduled thursday press availability bobby held on friday because of the boats in the meetings at the white house, but i did want to come out to talk to you about that meeting. as the president has indicated it was a very constructive

meeting and our goal is to have a balanced bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit without doing harm to the economy. to that end, i came to that the table as leader of the house democrats, a very special group a group that over 50% of our members, at 100 members over 50% of our caucus are either women or minority and over 50% of that number are women. women understand the impact of any changes in medicare, medicaid and social security and in a very clear way. i have said and i continue to say and i said at the table that although i want to try to agree to contribute to achieving a big -- how did the president reference it? did he call it a grand bargain? however the president recognized that i want them to have the room to do it and also the full

cooperation to do that. i also want to have full clarity about where house democrats didn't. we do not support cuts in benefits for social security and medicare. any discussion of medicare or social security should be on its own -- i have said that before. if you want to take a look at social security, then look at it on its own table but do not consider social security a bank for giving tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of america's seniors, women and people with disabilities. we are going to come as the president has also it indicated interstate we will be meeting again on sunday between now and then. there will be staff work and a number of conversations to take us closer to a balanced bipartisan agreement on how we reduce the deficit and help the economy grow.

let me say one further comment. a debate on the budget is a traditionally controversial measure. it is a different value system that we bring to the table different priorities and so it is of its nature partisan. it should not be partisan as to whether we will honor the full faith and credit of the united states government so it is unfortunate that these two issues have come together in this way. i think it is very important that we remove all doubt in anyone's mind that we will not default on past debt. this is leaving room for future spending. this is not what it is about. this is about paying the past debt. >> what is your understanding right now for the goal is 4 trillion, 2 trillion? what would you be willing to accept when it comes to

entitlement? >> one of the points that i made at the meeting and i don't like to talk about what happened at the presidents meeting except i can tell you what i brought to the table. i thought it would be really important for us to define our terms. what is the baseline? is a january 2011? is that the baseline? what is the length of time? is it 10 years or is it 12 years? if there is some kind of a cap on discretionary spending, are their there firewalls between domestic versus defense spending so that we don't run into a situation where there are no defense cuts and they are all domestic discretionary and questions as you describe. what is the total amount and i think that is up to the president to say. but we really do have to have a definition of our terms so that we know when we have reached success and not move the goalposts. >> in defining terms mamie said

social security should not be on the table and any mention of benefit. do you think the consumer price index in calculating benefits is that qualify a rubric change and would that be except those talk about? >> we did not get into that level of detail at the meeting so that is not a place where we went to but what i said if there is a table of social security is on, it is on its own table and any savings should be plowed back into making social security stronger and the same applies to medicare as well. >> is the final compromise going to have to guard -- if there are any changes in medicare or social security benefits could that compromise -- so changes are applicable? >> do you said with the changes compromise the boat and i said yes. we have been very clear. democrats are not -- house

democrats are not supporting any cuts in benefits for social security or medicare and we are concerned that the transferring of responsibility from medicaid to the state. we want to make sure that people -- the need doesn't go away. the knee doesn't go away from so these are three areas of concern for us. >> you talk to in the caucus about a white house -- [inaudible] >> i don't know that the white house today. in other words i know what we read in the paper. as far as i reading is concerned i think that i can legitimate read report to our caucus that their views have been heard and very strongly so. if the president were doing this by executive order, what with the bill look like? would it look the same as if it has to get 218 votes here? i don't think -- i think the president wants a bipartisan bill and i think that the

democrats stand ready to help with that rand bargain, but we want to do so without hurting our seniors and people with disabilities. >> did you tell the president -- did you tell the president that

to outline their position on spending and the debt ceiling. it begins with senator mike leavitt of utah. this is 20 minutes. >> thank you to everyone for joining us today. we are here to announce that we along with a total of 21 co-sponsors among republicans in the senate are injured a sing a filing this afternoon, piece of

legislation we are calling the cut, cap and balance act. this is the proposal that would raise the debt limit by $24 trillion. it would make the increase in the debt limit conditioned upon the occurrence of three events. for some significant immediate spending cuts that would take us back to a 3028 topline number, the same number that was found and senator tammy's legislation recently that would contain statutory caps, the same statutory caps and his legislation and it would also make it conditioned upon the passage by congress and submission to the states for ratification of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. ones that closely resemble senate joint resolution 10 which is the balanced budget amendment proposal that has been cosponsored by all 47

republicans in the united states senate. this is a big step forward. it is a move that we believe is absolutely necessary, because many of us believe that we can't find their future congress and because we can find a future congress or a simple legislative act, through simple statute, to cut three or $4 billion right now in order to make sort of a down payment on the debt limit increase is a promise that could become illusory if it is not accompanied by something else. the one way that we can find a future conference -- congresses through a constitutional amendment. we are identifying here today that this is one way that we could raise the debt limit. some of us have signed a pledge saying that we would not raise the debt limit unless these conditions have been satisfied. i'm one of those people. others among us have not signed the pledge, but have indicated that they would be willing to raise the debt limit in this

circumstance and i think senator roy blunt from missouri for making the suggestion a few weeks ago that we consider doing something like this and it was in response to that i and others decided to move this forward. again we have got 21 co-sponsors here in the senate. we look forward to picking up more in the next few days and we are confident and very optimistic that this is a solution to this awful crisis we find ourselves in. it could find support in both houses of congress and both political parties. i will now turn over to mike friend and colleague senator pat toomey who is one of our lead co-sponsors. >> thank senator lee and thanks really to ship on this. i appreciated very much. as i think everybody is figured out voting to raise the debt limit is not a fun boat and it is not a popular vote. but many of us acknowledge that the failure to do so would be quite disruptive and i use that

word essentially. failure to raise the debt limit would not result in a -- there were no are no circumstances in which that it occur because ongoing revenue in the treasuries treasury is more than enough by a large factor to ensure that we not default on our debt. having said that it would amount to a partial government shutdown and that is something that i for one would like to avoid. that is why i'm willing to vote to raise the debt limit however my own view is that the most irresponsible thing we can do would be to raise the debt limit and continue with this egregiously excessive spending and enormous deficit that we have been running. this bill makes a substantial increase in the debt limit possible but contingent on the kind of discipline that i think we badly need and by the way the elements of the bill, the spending cap levels and a balanced budget amendments have separately enjoyed very very broad support among republicans in the senate.

we had all but three republicans in the senate who voted for my budget on the senate floor and the cap levels are taken directly from that budget. we have had every single republican senator sign on to a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and we know that the public is very very supportive of reaching a balanced budget and reining in spending to do so. so, i think that this is the right approach. it is a very sensible approach. it has as i said the elements of and has very broad support in the conference. this particular bill has very quickly garnered a great deal of support within the conference and it is for some of us and myself in particular is a way to convey to the president that we are willing to raise the debt limit that we have got to fix the fiscal disaster that is unfolding so that we can have a strong economic growth and job creation that requires a sustainable fiscal profile. thank you.

>> last week the presidents chastised congress. i'm assuming that was chastising republicans and democrats alike, to cancel some things come and do some work. so we did. we insisted that they canceled a recess. we came back, expecting to work and do something about the debt ceiling and about the debt crisis. unfortunately the other side immediately move to another issue which wasn't the debt crisis. and we defeated that vote. the vote was ackley canceled because we were going to win the vote on monday. on tuesday. none of us wants to raise the debt ceiling. none of us thinks it is a good idea to spend money we don't have. we think it is a problem and we have been doing it for so long but we also think that there would be some circumstance under which we would borrow more money. to me that circumstance is you have to have a real plan, a binding plan that says we will do things differently that we can be trusted with the taxpayers money, that we can be

trusted to balance a budget and for me that means we have to have an amendments to the constitution. i see no objective evidence that congress is otherwise proving themselves to be trustworthy. we have abated graham rudman hollings. we just haven't done a good job here in the problem is getting precipitously worse. i think this is the path to go. i think it is the only path to go and i wanted to show today that republicans can't be for something, for some reforms and for raising the debt ceiling as long as we get a balanced budget amendment and i would like to introduce senator blunt. >> thank you. as senator lee said, i was one of the people that didn't want to sign it and don't intend to sign a pledge that says what i want to put this is a bill that says what i would do. and so this bill does the things that begin to create the structural changes that we have to have if we are going to pursue business as usual. my view much like senator

timmy's is that my practical view is that the debt limit needs to be increased and will be increased but i have said repeatedly that the thing worse than not lifting the debt limit would be lifting the debt limit and not changing behavior. we have to change behavior and we have to have structural change. this approach would do that. it cuts discretionary spending roughly back to the 2006 fy2006 level. it cap spending in other areas that i think generally increase in almost every other area specified with the cap by law and perhaps most importantly pushes forward the necessity of a balanced budget amendment. i am for all of those things. i think those are the kinds of structural changes that we need to have. i might able to be for other things as well depending on what happens over the next few days, but this is a plan that i'd like to see as the plan.

it creates the structural change that i would like to see and i don't intend to vote for a debt limit that doesn't have some significant structural change. this bill would be one of the ideas brought forward that i think would give us the change we need to move forward responsibly and there is no question that the government and the last 2.5 years has acted irresponsibly. we have added 35% to the national debt in 30 months. we talk about things like corporate jet depreciation and i think if you accepted the president's proposal it might save $3 billion. we are borrowing $4 billion today. you are not going to solve this problem by making your big discussion points roughly 16 or 18 hours of our wing and that is what you say is the real problem. that is clearly not the real problem, and so hopefully we

will see structural changes. we will not continue with business as usual and hopefully this debt ceiling moment creates the opportunity for the government to do its job and do the right thing and one of the guys who came here to do the right thing is senator johnson from wisconsin. >> thank you senator blunt. the only reason i ran for the united states senate is because i think we are bankrupting this nation and i've always thought the -- is a two-step process. first we have got to -- in the end these constitutional amendments limit spending and balance a budget so that is exactly what this bill does. it cut spending the first couple of years to lower the baseline. it cap spending over 10 years to put us on a glide path toward a balanced budget and then it does something very simple. it says the i we are responsible. we will increase the debt ceiling as long as we fix the problem and as long as we can --

the congress has passed a constitutional amendment to limit spending and balance the budget, we will increase the debt ceiling. that is pretty reasonable. i've am one american who is happy to let other americans decide if they are willing to put that fiscal discipline on all of us come on washington, on all americans. i'm willing to let the american people decide whether not we will continue down this business as usual in washington here, whether we really want to bankrupt the states or whether we want to pull ourselves back from that tipping point and again this is really about letting the american people decide. thank you. i think next is senator vitter. >> to me this is akin to having a cousin who has a credit card problem and he says don't worry have a solution. i need you to come down to the bank with me to get a higher limit or to get a credit card. that is not the solution. the solution is doing something meaningful about the underlying

spending and borrowing problem. that is what this approach does. cut, cap balance making that a requirement in terms of any increase in the debt ceiling is a responsible way to attack the true problem as well as deal with the immediate situation and i strongly support it. >> thank you. i really congratulate my colleagues were the for the work they have done on this. we have to change the way we do business. we don't have the money to continue spending as we are spending. we simply do not have the money and it is not going to be the objective to come in anytime soon so we have to do the things that families and the businesses and states and cities are doing all over america and that is raymack and. i agree with senator johnson that we need not only to reduce spending but create a structure that helps us stay within those limits are going think this is a good way to do it and i am pleased to be supporting it.

>> again we thank you for coming today. let's open up the floor to questions now. i should not senator hatch my senior senator from utah asked me to let you know he wanted to be here. he is the ranking member on the finance committee and is stuck in a mark-ups it could make it. let's open up the floor to questions. >> senator lee what are the hard issues that you might have to tackle in fiscal responsibility with entitlement? >> you may be aware that as few -- 60% say we want to preserve social security and medicare benefits and it is more important to them than resolving the budget deficit. how do you respond to that sort of response from a broken people in terms of that particular goal and how is that going to factor into what you and your fellow senators are trying to do to respond on the issue of

entitlement? >> my first response to that one is that i should make clear that the balanced budget amendment which is sometimes attacked on grounds that it might be deemed by some to be hostile to entitlements is agnostic as to where the cuts come from. we are laying down the gauntlet here by saying we are going to balance our budget and once the balanced budget amendment takes effect and congress will have to do that and as it sees it is about to take effect it will have to make the range and to do that. americans do overwhelmingly support that an that is why it is not surprising that americans overwhelmingly support the ballots budget amendment. they want to be debt even though they recognize the cuts will have to come from many places. they want that to happen but where exactly those cuts come from is not decided by the balanced budget amendment and not decided by this legislation in any way. we are crossing the first threshold of saying we have to get to the point of balancing.

my second response that has to do with the fact that our current course is not sustainable. the medicare trustees themselves have acknowledged that program is going bankrupt. some saved by the mid-2020s and others say it is insolvency could be as soon as 2017. and so the obligations that have been made today if they remain unchanged are not obligations that can be honored in perpetuity by the united states unless we bankrupt ourselves in the entire country along with it. so much as we might wish that the status quo were an option it's not. >> so what would you do about it? i mean it is not the same as status quo that is not acceptable. what is the path forward for a balanced budget amendment? >> sure, and that is where the toomey legislation comes in and the paul ryan budget legislation comes in.

there in several republicans proposals put or to start putting us on a course toward balancing our budget and that is part of what this legislation takes into account. and there are a number of things that we could do to get us on that course. some have suggested converting our current medicare system into a premium support model instead of a defined-benefit model, which we are on right now. >> what you do you make of the constitutional argument that the working amendment would allow the president treasury to create that without having a debt limit vote and how would congress respond if that is done? >> treasury secretary timothy geithner is mistaken when he makes the argument that section 4 of the 14th amendment somehow authorizes the executive branch unilaterally to bring about a debt limit increase. what section 4 the 14th amendment says in essence is that the civil war deaths of the

united states united states government would be honored and those of the confederacy would not. now the language isn't limited to civil war civil war deaths. that is where the rows. it applies more broadly than that and instead of saying what mr. geithner has insisted that it says what it actually says is that the secretary of the treasury lacks the authority. the secular branch as a whole lacks authority to disregard outstanding financial obligations. such that a default would be unconstitutional. a default in the sense that if the debt limit increase is not passed by congress, he would lack the authority to withhold funds to make sure that the united states government remains current on its debt service obligation and paying its debt interest that we bring in between 175 and $20 billion a month roughly, the debt service payments are a small fraction of that, less than 10% of that.

that would mean that under section 4 of the 14th amendment, the treasury secretary is to make sure that those get paid first. he lacks the discretion under section 42 withhold those funds and send them elsewhere because he has to honor the debt obligations of united states. by the very important point on the language of section 4 says that as approved by law or words to that effect. are codas congress that makes the law, and its articles section close to that gives the power to encourage debt in the united states. he can extend the debt of the united states without an act of congress much as he might wish to believe otherwise. >> there are talks about possibly a trillion dollars -- [inaudible] >> well you know i would have to see what they are talking about. there is a difference between revenue raisers and tax

increases. there are ways of raising revenue without raising taxes. if it is a tax increase that is something that republicans in the house and the senate are not going to support. >> but if it is a way of closing loopholes? >> if they are closing loopholes, closing loopholes so that they can lower marginal rates, which in the end would result in increased revenue? i think you would find a very receptive audience among most if not all republicans. i won't speak for any of my colleagues. let me allow them to answer. >> you know i have always said that revenue has to be part of the solution. i want revenue through growth. i want revenue through progrowth policies including pro-growth tax reform not just jacking up rates. so if it is revenue by streamlining the code and producing growth i am all for that. it is a lot different than a tax hike. >> i think one quick point about

revenue, revenue is starkly averages about 18% of gdp. the last three years it has been under 15%. why? does that have anything to do with the bush tax cuts? know those were in 2003 and in 2006 you still had revenue at 18%. in 2008, nine in 10 they were below 50% because we are in a global recession. raising taxes or increasing regulations which have both been favored by this administration are hurting the economic growth and not helping it. >> senator lee have you gotten senator mcconnell to support the legislation what about the rest of the leadership? >> i will be happy to read the current list of co-sponsors. to answer your question more immediately, senator mcconnell has not signed on but we have so far as co-sponsors to this legislation senators ayotte barrasso lunt coburn corker

demint graham hatch isakson johnson lee paul portman roberts rubio sin toomey vitter wicker and sessions. >> senator blunt speaker was at your lunch and some of the members left feeling a little optimistic after hearing -- [inaudible] and it to be but that impression [inaudible] can you give us some sense and are you more optimistic? >> i have probably been in at least hundreds of meetings. i don't know that i we get to thousands but it leaves hundreds of meetings with speaker before he was speaker. he is always an optimistic man that he was optimistic today so i think if you are a half-full kind of guy you heard that with optimism and if you are half-empty kind of guy you have heard that with less optimism

but i do think and probably the right answer to anything about revenue or anything else is the president has i believe publicly said he is going to have the same group come back to the white house on sunday. there is a substantial belief that whatever is going to happen is likely to happen in the next few days and i for one want to wait and see what happens rather than try to say how i feel about what might happen. i think it is either going to happen or not pretty quickly and my sense is that was one of the things they are working hard to make something happen but nothing is happened yet. there is no deal yet. nobody knows what the deal is. we will see how genuine everybody is in trying to get their but i think if they do get there they will bid get there pretty quickly or they won't get there. >> we'll be looking for an approach on this proposal or a

balanced budget amendment or is there any sort of agreement announced in the white house talks? >> well, i will be pushing for a vote on this proposal. how that interacts with the white house proposals is difficult if in fact impossible to ascertain at this point. but i would like this proposal to receive a vote at some point between now and august 2 and the timing of that like i say is -- thank you very much. we sure appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] in the senate today members debated a resolution calling on those earning more than a million dollars to quote make a more it more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort. here is part of that debate on

on the resolution with democrats dick durbin a sponsor the bill and republican lamar alexander who voted against the dur resolution.ng >> the sense of the senate resolution for those who follow the senate. this is not a law or will not beaw i a law is passed. it is merely an expression of sentiment by the senate on an issue, and it can be summarized very o quickly with the sense of the senequas which reads, it is e the sense of the senate that any agreement to reduce the budgetuld deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort. why are we even talking about this? wouldn't everyone in america concede that everyone needs to w make a sacrifice if we are going to make this country stronger?e and, those who can make a

greater sacrifice, those who are well off with an income of a million dollars or more each year should do a little more. why is that such a old and controversial suggestion? sugge because in fact, whenio we look atthe the actions taken by congress over the last 10 years, we have found a sentiment, a political sentiment by merely from the otherma side of the aisle, not exclusively, primarily which says you cannot ask sacrifice of the wealthiest people in america. well i can tell you those who are students of american history know that when we have had a challenge in this nation particularly during wars when our t very existence was being w challenged, peopleas stepped uped from every income level in america and said, i am willing to fight for this country. for i am willing to die for this country and i'm willing to sacrifice for this country so why would this be a matter to be debated on the floor of the d

senate? for well o because in fact thete? policies of this country over thes last 10 years have said that the wealthiestye among us should be spared time and again fromm sacrifice when it comes to the future of our nation. that is just plain wrong. those who were fortunate enough to be well-off, to have a strong income, to enjoy the blessings in of liberty, toco live and what i to feel is the greatest nation on el i earth, should be prepared to give back something. and i've spoken to some in our walk o lf life here in the senate. we spend time with those who are well-off who finance our f campaigns. that is a reality i'm not happy with butli a reality. so many of them have said for goodness sake senator why do youodness s even hesitate to ask me for more a taxes? i am prepared to pay those taxes because i feel less to have lived in this country.o so the idea of raising taxes on the wealthiest among us will change their lifestyle a bit. won but it will help to solve some

of our problems. youit see if we don't change the c tahax cuts that were put in under president george w. bush people making a million dollars plus a w year look atil get a 200,000-dollar tax break, 200,000-dollar tax break every year. and in order to pay for that taxin break some other americans havens to h sacrifice. for example, it would mean that sen about 33rs seniors will have to pay $600 more a year for medicare under one proposal on the house republicans budget so we we will generate enough money to m give a taxon break to a person who is a millionaire.is a 33 seniors paying $600 more ag $6 year so that a millionaire can get a tax break. that is wrong. it is just plain wrong.e i believe that we need to ask and for shared sacrifice and that is what thisay resolution says. senator mcconnell who was here moments ago said this week it isabout about making tough choices.

is about washington taking the hit this time. well, the people who are taking a hitn in america are not fromco washington. there from all across thisiddlcl country. it is low and middle income americans who are taking a hit in the current economy. s there are still almost 14 a million americans out of work. whore those who are working and seen at seen the bulk of income growth go to the highest income categories. we have the greatest income disparity in the history of thete uniteds states since the great ov depression. over the past 10 years the median family income has declined by more than $2500 what it means to stir president whether is new mexicoea or illinois is the people who are working hard and going to work every single day makinggl makg sacrifices fall further andehin further l behind, live paycheck to paycheck and that is the reality of life for hard-working middle income americans. so those of us who come to the floor and say spare them if you a are going to spare anyone fromhe further taxation, give them a helping hand, understand it so

they can keep their heads above water. so many americans live paycheckany to paycheck. it is the only way they survived and that is a reality. col my colleague from kentucky is right that inag washington we need t to make the tough choices and wehem need to face them with a sense of consensus and compromise. an all or nothing approach tog the budget isn't going to work. and about an hour and 15 minutese i'm going to be honored to represent with senator reid ourdemocrs majority leader the senate o democrats in a meeting with president obama. we will sit down in the cabinet room as i have before and we we' g will talk about what we are going to do with this deficit t s crisis. - to i would say i will chase say to the president is assembled we have plenty tove work with. it was six or seven months ago when the polls simpson commission, the presentus commission on the deficit gave us a blueprint and said here is a way to reach $4.5 trillion of fair deficit reduction in the fairway and put everything on the table. democratsdemocrats up.

put the entitlements on the table. make sure the end of the day, a these are still programmed to serve the public. social security still there p making its promised payments. make sure that medicare covers e the health care of elderly americans and do it in aay fiscally responsible way but don't run away from it. don't ignore the problems that you face.missn similarly the polls simpson commission said to those on the other side of the aisle, be honest about revenue. we are facing the lowest federal revenue against our grossic pro domestic productct that we have a seen and 60 years. is it any wonder we are in deficit? 15% of our gross domestic the product comes to the government and we spend 25% so the tempers and differences are deficit. is time to bring the spending this bending down and the revenue up.peev w c't critics will say you can't raise taxes in the midst of a recession. n well we need to be careful i agree. raising taxes in the wrong

places could hurt our recovery. here are some places where itn't ht, won't hurt rico as this ys resolution says at the highest income categories. these americans can afford too pay a little more. they certainly don't need a tax break. secondly take a look at the tax codes. up to $1.2 trillion a year in tax spending, tax earmarks credits and deductions that this special-interest lobbyists put in the tax code. many of them are absolutelyand we indefensible and we can't afford them any more.ac if we are asking sacrifice across the board from america we should ask sacrifice from those who are benefiting from these tax loopholes and tax benefits. that. we can do that.e in fact we may be able to do it if a we follow whole simpson atat t the same time reduce themarg marginal tax rates for all americans. it can be done. let's take a hard look at the tax code and remember mr. president, 75% of americans tak to not itemize which means they do not take advantage of the tax code except in the rare

situation where they have a refundable tax credit. usi these people are not using theho use tax code. i those who use it aren't higher income categories.eyre they are using it and followingvoid theg law and avoiding theirfett h taxes. warren buffett had a great quote which we should remember what we debate this. november 26 2006, there is "the class warfare alright but it is my class, the brits class that is waging war and we are." waiting. warren buffett is a man of few is words and listened to carefully because of his wisdom in business and life and he hit the nail on the head. he said to me and to many others and and publicly it is unconscionable that using our tax code today warren buffetttax rat pays a lower marginal tax rates in rate than the secretaries in his office. that is absolutely wrong.ho why should a hard-working persons at in a business at a lower level pay a higher marginalhe tax rate

than the person owning the business making millions of dollars each year? that is where the tax code is c wrong and that is wherean we can change it save money, use it to reduce the deficit and reduce marginal income tax rates. that is what this resolution is all about. is nothing short of debating the question of whether those who make a million dollars or more really each year should really pony up to contribute more when it comes to deficitt reduction. the n mr. president the newspapers this morningew talked about what may be included in any finaln't ow agreement and i don't w know whatre will be included.s i hope there is an agreement that the one thing i want to make clear, just leftt a meeting with people who do forecasting standard & poor's moody's fitch and the like and theybo talked about what is going to happen if we do not extend the debt ceiling. let me lay my cards on the table. the debt ceiling vote every year foo is a political football. those were not in thearty jus president's party just don't want to vote for it.

why should you go home and get slapped around for having voted to extend america's debt? d there were times iid didn't vote bu for it but in all honesty i knew inin the back of my ninth it was going to pass.t here' but here is the reality. if we reach a stalemate on the b debt ceiling now because the't president's party doesn't control the congress and certainly not the house and barely the senate, if we don'ts extend the debt ceiling to what g is going to happen is obvious.he the full faith and credit of the united states is going to be called into question and that is never happen. we have never in ouris history failed to extend the debt we ceiling and to say that we stand and behind our debts and will make good on payments. t if there is any question about 's t that you know what happens.ns does the same thing that happens when you default on your homencre mortgage. er it becomes increasingly difficult to ever get anotherou mortgage and if you do you facen higher interest rates than ever. that is what america will face up we don't extend d the debt ceiling. they said it will be disastrous

if you allow the debt ceiling not to be extended. that is the reality of the world that we live in. would so i would say as we go into these important and difficultth negotiations as we m move toward the moment when we are going to half i hope an agreement, let's make it very clear to the world the united states understands its obligations and will pay its debt and that we won't face the the dire consequences of the opposite being true. that is the reality of what we face today.er i will say one last thing before i yield the floor. as we structure this deficit, rescue or deficit raj act let's remember two things are essential. there are vulnerable people in the united states of america who through no fault of their owno struggle each day to live. some of them suffer from physical and mental disabilities. some om of them have been for their poor f entire lives and come from poornd families and have a difficultso o

time with limited education. some of them are elderly in nursingrs homes. t these people, the most formal or bold need a helping hand. we have never failed to do that in modern times and we shouldn't te in this time of trouble and time of deficit. we can kee p our word to the poor among us that we are going tostan stand by them because we are hearing people. we can do it by making certainhe that the medicaid program which provides health insurance f for one third of the children inca america, which covers more than 40% of the medical costs of children, covers the medical costs of earth of more than 40% of the children in america and for m literally provides for millions of seniors to be able to stay in nursing homes and in senior settings so that they ca tn do so. these are the things we need to take care of in the midst of my this deficit -- deficit reduction. i see my colleague has come to the floor and there there is time available on your side.

i'm going to yield the floor. i am wrapping up so i:mike senator from tennessee, but i will wrap up to say we can take care to make sure the safety net is protected and to make sure as t well that we address all levels of spending in our government. that is everyone of them. to make certain whether it is theit defense budget for theefen budget programs not related to defense but entitlement programs.es all of these need to be carefully scrutinized. scrin we can cut spending in a responsible bipartisan way and show that we can bring orgthe deficit down straighten this economy and i think in theo process if we do it on are bipartisan basis we are going to launch an economic recovery for the benefit of all of us. w if this ends up in finger-pointing i would don't know who will take theng fall for the. the best thing we can do is to ignore the political aspect andt deal with the reality of the challenge that we face. mr. president i yield the floor. tenss

>> mr. president? >> the senator from tennessee is -- recognized. >> i appreciate what the i senator from illinois said and i him. congratulate him. not necessarily for the he specifics of what he said but for his general demeanor and attitudet throughout this entire de discussion about the deficit and the debt. he has been one offit.ee those senators who have made some difficultom choices and some difficult decisions and recognize at a time whens, our country -- washington is h borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we stand and we have to look atavio our entire fiscal condition.to -in in order to solve a problem. the people in this countryntry expect us to do that so senator durbin has t by his willingness to make smart decisions set a pretty good example for all of the us in the united states senate.t my hope is that the meeting the president has with our

congressional leaders on both sides succeeds because if they succeed our country succeeds. the country expects us to do that.i h i hope they think they. i hope they swing for the fences i and get a result i bring it back to what it was inconsiderate and considerate and hopefully an active and get onto othethr things. major the debt is a major long-term problem. not just for our grandchildren but for us today. iss we have a bigger issue facing us and that is the fact that we have had persistent unemployment and an economyco that is not growing and that is hurting too many people so the sooner we swing for the fence and get a result, and get our debt under control and deal with it in a for t bipartisan way, the quicker we will be able to get onto the larger question of jobs. of course economists make clear to us that getting the debt under control has a lot to do with jobs when our total debt is as high00 as it is today, nearly

100% of our gross domestic ruddock, that probably cost us a m million jobs a year.n we can't solve all that in one day or one month but we can take a big step in the right direction and that isdi reallyry m a what our countrymen and women so want us to do. so i'm glad i got you here to hear part of the senator speech and i'm glad i have a chance to l commend him forrs his leadershipprlem on this vexing and important problem that we needth to deald t with and i think the president and i yield the floor. ..

the white house has issued a non-binding request to federal agencies to reduce and streamline regulations. the heads of several of those rulemakings agencies testified that this house hearing about how they responded. we will hear testimony from officials of the consumer product safety commission. the federal communications commission, the federal energy regulatory commission and the federal trade commission. this hearing is to win a half hours.

>> good morning everybody. the investigation will come to order, and its an opportunity to give an opening statement and i shall open with my and. president thomas's six sick of order 1450's six slash 03 agencies must take into account costs and benefits of proposed rule regulations use the least burdensome method to achieve regulatory goals, maximize net benefits and evaluate alternatives to direct regulation. the order also requires agencies to conduct periodic reviews of significant regulations to determine whether they are outmoded ineffective insufficient or excessively burdensome. these retrospective reviews have been required for more than 40 years. and if conducted as intended could be crucial, could be a crucial tool in reducing the

burden some of regulation in our economy today. as the chairman of the subcommittee i've set out to ensure that the goals are simply achieved. regulations cost money and in today's weak economy, we cannot afford such burdens when they are totally unnecessary. during our june 3rd hearing mr. kass some steam indicate that although independent agencies were not bound to comply with executive order, he believes that they should. unfortunately, none of the independent agencies under the committee's jurisdiction have to date complied with this executive order. so we are holding this hearing today to ask of the cpsc the fcc, the ftc and ferc to explain why they did not submit a regulatory review plan to cass sunstein by may 18th as they were asked to do.

while each of these agencies engages in some degree of regulatory review, and none of them conduct the kind of top to bottom regular retrospective revue that will help to unburden our economy. the cpsc perhaps more than any other agency today seems determined in our opinion to pass a regulation without even a hint of regulatory utility. commissioner northrop will testify that cpsc regulations are estimated to cost the industry billions of dollars with no cost benefit analysis done to simply justify those regulations no analysis done to show improved safety for our children. commissioner northrop also submitted for the record today a list of businesses that have closed their doors in part because of cpsc regulations. now we realize many of the cpsc's most damaging regulations are required by the cpsia that a

number of unintended consequences until congress can act to reform that all we would hope that cass cpsia will use discretion to comply with the president of the united states executive order. where cpsc doesn't have discretion, we would hope ferc tecum cpsc commissioners would be cooperative and open the committee identify where the need more discretion rather than sending last minute partisan letters meant to derail the reform process. meanwhile, chris asserted that the regulatory goals in regard to the ftc decades ago. removing its authority to operate under the administrative procedure act and instead instituting the mac moss procedures created under a democratic congress to halt the agency from further significant rulemaking. today the agency resorts to rulemakings through orders and guidelines that do not undergo a

notice and comment process. although ferc doesn't issue a number of large regulations there's room to improve its rulemaking and regulatory review also. ferc call for broad ranges of data sets without a clear indication on how the agency utilizes this information. it has not conduct a top to bottom review of its regulation since the clinton administration. and it's not clear what if any cost-benefit analysis has done of the impact its policies have on the energy industry and consumers. now as for the fcc. the drafting of the communications and telecommunications act congress emphasized the importance of deregulation. the fcc is required to review telecommunications regulations every two years and its media ownership rules every four years. but these reviews fall short of what the president and this committee have asked agencies to

do. the only cover a narrow set of rules of the fcc. the commission can't seem to get these reviews done on time and the commission has it repealed or modified any significant regulations in recent preview periods. perhaps that's because the commission is too busy taking conclusions, conclusion driven actions such as the net neutrality order and the chairman section 706 report. so my colleagues look forward to learning more about what each agency will do to adopt the principles principles the president's executive order. i hope the format of this hearing gives you all the opportunity to learn about what other agencies are doing to improve the process. with that, i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. this is the fourth of the series of hearings examining the government's regulatory review process, and i am frankly pleased to hear you today

embraced president's executive order that sets forth principles of regulations protecting public health welfare, safety and the environment while at the same time promoting economic growth and competitiveness. i thought that cass sunstein was an excellent witness talking to us about how we can agree on a bipartisan basis that we should eliminate unnecessary regulations of the agencies. now today we have witnesses and i'm happy to welcome all of them particularly our former colleague, congressman northrop and these witnesses represent for independent superbly agencies, the consumer product safety commission, the federal energy regulatory commission the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission. now, congress created these agencies as independent agencies and so therefore as you noted mr. chairman, they are not covered explicitly by the president's the executive

order on regulatory review. but it's important though for the subcommittee and the public to understand whether or not the independent regulatory review process at these agencies are effective and efficient. i'd like to correct the record when he testified he said she had urged these independent agencies to conduct regulatory review process these but he did not say that they should submit reports to him like the agencies under the purview of the executive order so i was a little confused. mr. chairman, when you had said that somehow they should submit reports because not only are they not required to but mr. some sunstein himself does not believe that these agencies are directly subject to the executive order and that is in order to prevent any president democrat or republican from overreaching the authority.

as we hear from these agencies on the regulatory review efforts, i think we need to keep a few thoughts in mind. first of all, these agencies were created originally as independent entities from political the influence, and we've given them decision making flexibility that other agencies do not have. second coming in respect of the dixit of order as i mentioned there are a number of statutory requirements concerning transparency and efficiency in the regulatory process that already apply to the independent agencies. for example, the regulatory flexibility act requires federal agencies including independent agencies to analyze the impact of the rules on a small organizations. the administrative procedure act broadly leaves out the scheme under which agencies proposed and finalize regulations and provide public participation in the rulemaking process. finally, it's important to

remember that the underlining a mission of all the agencies before us today is to ensure the safety and health of all of our citizens. while we should make sure that the regulations they propose are well crafted and not overly burdensome, we should also acknowledge the importance of the work they do with the regulations they promulgate. this year the fcc issued a report to adopt a rule requiring providers to enter data from the arrangements with other providers allowing consumers to remain connected when they travel outside the providers coverage area. ftc recently established a do not call registry with consumers with a watch or receive calls from telemarketers. this is wildly popular with my constituents, by the way. and every day ferc acts as a natural adjudicatory body handling extremely complicated technical issues in the electricity market. but i want to talk just in the last minute that i have about

the recent proposals on the other side of the ogle that would undermine the consumer product safety commission and some of the other good work that they have done. three years ago this committee and this congress looked hard in a sycophant please let partisan manner to put meaningful reform for consumers and to this consumer product safety improvement act. this has yielded unbelievable benefits. the cpsc has initiated a wide range to protect children from mandatory standards to cribs to the problem of dangerous place to banning certain filing its and on and on. and this evidence shows that it's beginning to happen. so i think it's important to notice these reforms were worked out by this committee and one of the last great efforts that was completely bipartisan. we should increase that if there are problems with the reva regulations are being promulgated we need to talk about that. but eliminating these important

safety provisions is simply not an option. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentlelady. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate you holding this important regulatory. when he issued his executive order creating this cost-benefit analysis and look towards creation of jobs versus a imagination that independent agencies about this and that's why i've introduced h.r. 2204 the of climate act which will require all major regulations include a statement for the jobs created lost or sent overseas. under this act all major federal elections significantly affecting jobs and job opportunities will require a

rigorous analysis given to the environmental the impact and the regulation was the bush policy that jobs are important in housing is public health and the environment. this would be an issue you can take into effect jobs lost by certain american toy companies when we figured out that children don't eat a tvs, but yet abandoned it the children could have an impact on jobs. we've seen the problems caused by regulators not paying attention to the effect of their actions have on jobs. in my own district regulations enacted by the consumer product safety commission acting far beyond its authority or the intent of the law wife year isn't one of the most important

ones it is important but i think it may be an exception of one of the most poorly written bills, too. i shouldn't have used their semen but it's a local small cloves in a small business. some of which the contract to have done in china or omaha does it really makes sense the same design has to be tested on every size of t-shirts. different colored t-shirts. does it make sense that they have to add ten t-shirts together assuming a child is going to completely meet ten t-shirts in one setting? and of this really makes sense. so this type of system where its one-size-fits-all mattel verses willie's it doesn't make a lot of sense. i have found out that the irony is that many of the rules don't

really protect the consumers but just make it more difficult to do their job really putting small businesses in particular on the brink of extinction because of these are necessary rules and regulations so i appreciate hearing so we can protect and i will give my time back to the chairman. >> i thank a gentleman and i yield two minutes to the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you mr. sherman and welcome to the witnesses. we appreciate that you are here to talk with us about the president's six tickets 413563, and it's not application to the independent agencies. these agencies have refused to voluntarily comply with the order to require justification for the cost and the burden of the regulation. some agencies believe that there political end justify the regulatory means and the

insulation from the traditional checks and balances is a blank check for them to pursue high practiced causes bureaucrats and faulted a restrictive late to our economic engine and they really have fled to private sector job growth to the pits. and now they are resisting voluntary compliance with the obama order because failing to justify their costly regulations means congress and the american people are going to raise more questions instead of delegating more power and authority. now these agencies don't know how to make the best individual decisions for us. what food we eat what we buy what privacy settings we want our mobile devices or what lightbulbs we prefer to use in our homes. these agencies that use explicit regulatory intimidation and threats of government taking to impose voluntary regulations on top traders aren't even a willing to hold themselves to

the same standard. say refuse. we need to hold these agencies accountable, let's ensure greater efforts are taken to balance economic arms with the agency's that these agencies are causing on our economic growth and jobs. and i yield back. >> the gentlelady heels backend recognizes mr. waxman for five minutes. is it five minutes? five minutes for his opening statement. stomachs before mr. chairman. this is the fourth hearing the subcommittees have on the issue of regulations. the others have been the president's executive order, and the third focused on health regulations recently adopted. now we are looking on the independent regulatory agencies. the president's the executive order applies to those agencies under the office of management and budget. they are not independent. the agencies before us are determined by law to be

independent. that doesn't mean they don't take into consideration the cost and benefits in the issue regulation. the of the comet and get full input. i think that what we need to do is to make sure the we don't have regulations that are unnecessary, but these hearings that we have had dissolved into forms for questioning health environment, consumer protection law that my colleagues on the republican side of the yolly will find objectionable. i was struck by the comment of the last speaker that we don't want these independent agencies -- they don't make good decisions, they don't know how to make the best decisions, they are using the regulatory intimidations on job creators. i can't think of no other expression of hyper view of all of this. we shouldn't have a lopsided focus on the cost with no seeming consideration of the

benefits. and we haven't had hearings that have resulted in any substantial legislation or important oversight findings. the four independent agencies have done a lot to make the lives of the american citizens better. the consumer product safety commission recently launched a new consumer complete database which allows parents and concerned consumers to obtain important product safety information which will improve the cpsc ability to identify trends and product hazards more efficiently. and just this morning i released the first analysis of the product safety database. we found in the first three months of operation the data base already launched over 6000 incident reports including reports of almost 500 injuries or fatalities and consumers visiting the online database have conduct almost 1.8 million product searches. maybe some of these detectors

don't want anybody looking over their shoulder, but that's not the job of these agencies to do with the manufacturers want. their job is to protect the consumers. mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent that this report to be included as part of the committee record. >> with the gentleman hold? i think we have a copy of it. i will withdraw -- >> the fcc proposed rulemaking to require salles from companies to provide users, alerts that warned consumers of unexpected charges on their bills less than seven months ago the agency adopted a crucial role to protect the openness of the internet. i think these are two very important accomplishments and the ftc recently adopted rules to protect homeowners from scams promise in the belief of mortgage payments and the less you'll love the bureau of the consumer protection filed over 60 cases to protect the right of

the consumers. is this intimidation? it seems the agencies are doing their job and went to keep an independent from the political pressure and we concede in the comments of members of this committee. from the price gouging in the electricity of energy markets these accomplishments are important. the save money for the american -- for the american public prevent fraud, improve public safety and public health. they've made powerful companies that would like to to get in touch as consumers and which they have support by some members of congress and carrying their water, but that's no reason for us to browbeat the agencies. the focus of our oversight should be to help these agencies that finance the goal of enhancing the lives of the american families. our committees responsible in the area of legislation in some key areas. health care for seniors, setting the nation's energy policy promoting telecommunications

innovation and competitiveness and ensuring appropriate consumer protection for american families and children. the oversight work of the subcommittee should shed light on how best to legislate in the areas and in important subjects. that's why there are real costs when this committee focuses its time on the spinning and messaging we lose the atherton be to move the legislation will promote jobs, promote economic security cannot protect health safety and welfare of the american public. i hope we make good use of our time today with the commissioners i urge the chairman of all chairman and all members to support their efforts on behalf of the american public. and i yield back. >> all opening statements are concluded. i would ask unanimous consent that the written opening statement of mr. upton and others who wish to provide opening statements for this hearing be made a part of the record.

without objection the documents will be entered into the record. now it is my opportunity to welcome the distinguished panel i'm starting to realize my experience in congress where i have ever seen these many agencies collected together and i don't think there ever has been at least in my experience, so it's a very auspicious occasion to have this distinguished group here to meet with. i appreciate you coming. i fought for the members i would give you a brief biography of each of the witnesses. the consumer product safety commissioner is a commissioner at the united states consumer product safety commission and was appointed in august 2009 prior to assuming office he served as professor of legal studies at the university of north carolina at the luther hodges jr. scholars ethics and law at chapel hill's kennon fly burke business school. the university he served as associate dean of the nda program as associate dean of the schools bachelor science business administration.

welcome. commissioner north route is the honorable in fact she serves as the third congressional district of kentucky representing louisville district in the united states house of representatives as a republican from 1997 to 2006 and having served with her before her tenure in congress, she served in the kentucky house of representatives for nine years. from 1987 to 1996. july 30 of come to doesn't mind president obama nominated her to a seat on the consumer product safety commission and was confirmed by the senate august 7th 2009. welcome. commissioner robert mcdowell was first appointed to a seat on the federal communications commission by president bush. in 2006 reappointed to the commission by president barack obama in 2009. he brings over 16 years of private sector experience in the telecommunications industry to the commission. welcome. chairman john a willing hoff was

named chairman of the federal energy regulatory commission, ferc caught the agency that oversees wholesale electric transaction intercity electric transmission and gas transportation in the united states by the president obama dewitt march 19th, 2009 the number of the commission since 2006 the u.s. senate confirms entry full five-year term in december 2009. he's an energy specialist with more than 34 years of experience in the field. welcome. >> commissioner felt is currently serving the second term on the commission of ferc having been nominated by president obama and sworn in for a term expiring june 35th. he nominated by president bush in 2006 and sworn into office july 24th of 26. from july 2007 he worked in congress serving as an energy policy adviser to senator slade gorton where he worked on electricity policy.

and then we have the chairman john literalists from the federal trade commission served as the chairman of this commission since february, 2009 was appointed to the ftc as commissioner in the fall of 2004. before coming to the commission he had a long career in the public sector working for the u.s. senate judiciary committee for almost ten years and prodir to that in the office of senator paul simon. welcome. in commissioner william servile the federal trade commission since january, 2006 and served as the trend from march, 2008 to march from 2,009. he was the ftc general counsel from 2001 to 2004 and worked for the commission from 1979 until 1983. he has been a professor of law at george washington university law school and is also called law at george mason university school of law. welcome. as you know, the testimony that you are about to give is subject to title xviii section 1001 of

the united states code when holding an investigative hearing this committee has the practice of taking testimony under oath three heriot do any of you have an objection to testify in under oath? >> no? okay. the chair advises you under the rules of the house and the rules of the committee, were entitled to the advice of counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? no? if not then please comer mize -- >> mr. chairman, i hate to interrupt but one thing i would ask at least as one member here is that pictures are not taken while they are being sworn in. i know this is done but i think it is unfair to the witnesses and i think it sends a message that is not inappropriate and i would ask that the camera people not to take a picture of the individuals with their right hand raised. just think that it's used to often to send the wrong message to the public. everyone here is voluntarily participating and we should not

be given a false impression to the public. that is just one member's statement, but i think in the end government of fairness on both sides i want to raise this issue again and again and i'm doing that today and i apologize. >> i thank the chairman and as you know, he and i are good friends. unfortunately i have to overrule you. i think the press has a right to take pictures when they want, and i think that's probably what i have seen from my experience been involved in so many oversight investigation hearings as well as others. it's customary to with the press has access. sorry to have to overrule you. if you please, stand up. raise your right hand. do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. >> it's my pleasure not to start with the opening statements. mr. adler, we welcome you and look forward to your statement. >> thank you very much and good morning, chairman stearns ranking member degette, and the members of the senate

committee on oversight and investigations for the opportunity to testify along with my colleague miss northup on the consumer safety commission. my name is bob adler and i've been a commissioner of the agency since august of 2009. i'm honored to sit in the company of so many of my fellow independent agency commissioners, and i bring you regret from chairman tannin, who is not able to be here today. in order for me to respond to the subcommittee request for the agency's response to the executive order 13563 and similar executive orders, i briefly need to review a few critical points about making it to the ctc. i do so to make the point we've undertaken the promulgation of regulations and the retrospective revue in the full spirit of the policies incorporated in the executive orders despite our being exempt from the orders. so i would like to make a few observations and i promise i will be brief. first, since 1981, the cpsc has been required under amendments to the safety act and the other

acts in force is to conduct an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis when we write safety rules. under these amendments, our cost/benefit approach is as comprehensive if not more so as that set forth in any executive order issued by the office of the president, and i think in the case of any other agency. in fact over the years in part because of the detailed and lengthy cost-benefit procedures contained in the laws, the commission was actually promulgated very few mant to receive the rules under these procedures. now why did account, so i could be off by one or two but by my count, and 30 years we've issued a grand total of nine mandatory safety standards or about one every three and one-third of a year which meant we had to turn to alternative approaches one of which is working with the voluntary standards sector to promulgate a voluntary standards and upgrade voluntary standards. the average of about the shift is worked through a very successful corrective action

program and that has been successful. with respect to the regulatory review kunar to the passage of the regulatory flexibility afton ytd. at bat time the cbnc chose to undertake the retrospective review of every 64 will under its jurisdiction from the very beginning, not just those identified as having a significant impact on a substantial number of small economic entities. since the reedy we've continued for the past 30 years to comply with the requirements for the retrospective review of the regulations under the regulatory flexibility act. in addition to conducting a retrospective review of regulations under the rfa they have voluntarily undertaken a comprehensive removal of the regulations beginning in 2004 and temporarily suspended in 2007. and consistent with executive order 1356. in fact in conducting the review

is committed the agency to using a wendi's assessment tools. the only of departure for our approach a rise is because of the enactment of the consumer product safety improvement act in 2008. in response to its grave concerns about the need to protect the lives of young children, congress voted overwhelmingly in the house of was a vote of 424 to one to set a number of very tight guidelines for the commission to meet. the general counsel did a count of the number of deadlines imposed on us. there were 42 separate deadlines imposed by the safety improvements act. but recognizing the difficulty of meeting these deadlines conagra's streamlined our rulemaking authority when writing these children's safety rules. and limit to the requirements and the sea psa for economic analysis of the impact of the rules. the streamlined procedure directed the regulate hazardous children's products such as

infant death seats, baby walkers and cribs all of which were associated with an on acceptable number of fatalities and serious injuries as i believe resulted in significantly more expeditious and protective safety standards that should save members' lives in the coming years. and could not have been accomplished otherwise. i particularly want to know the commission's new crib standard which was unanimously approved by all of our commissioners and became effective last tuesday june 28. this standard sets the most stringent safety requirements with cribs in the world and ensures that the place that infants spend the most time and the most time alone will be the safest place in their homes. having noted that i hasten to add even with this new authority under that cpsia the commission remains obligated to conduct economic analyses of the regulatory flexibility act. assuring that our most

vulnerable small business sector is safeguarded along with safeguarding our most vulnerable young consumers. it's a meeting the deadlines imposed under the cpsia and we are going to miss a few more. but as we wind down the bulk of the cpsia will making it is my understanding at jarman tannin bob hastert to the staff to develop options to restart the review process. in closing, not withstanding that independent agencies do not fall under the direct purview of this executive order 13563 we at cpsc have always tried to implement the wisdom contained in the exit to the borders and to coordinate the efforts in the spirit of orders to the best of the devotee. it's very broad. roughly speaking if you walk into a department store or sporting goods store or to restore you go to a school that's us, those products that

are in those institutions are the things we regulate but we are an agency that has barely above 500 people and the budget just about $180 million in other words i'm sitting at a table with agencies between two and half to three times our size. but given these limits of the resources i think we have done a good job in advancing the consumer safety and thank you very much. >> thank you gentlemen. ms. northup? is particularly nice to have a former member. i appreciate -- >> thank you. >> chairman stearns and ranking member degette, thank you so much for the a opportunity to testify and i am delighted to be back on capitol hill with you. i have great respect and appreciation for the challenges you face every day at the decisions that you made. i do appreciate the opportunity to come and give you some idea of what it looks like from the other side from a regulatory agency. you just heard an excellent

history and review of the consumer product safety commission and the past the way they operated primarily through the development of the voluntary guidelines through the risk assessment and intervention when there were real risks based on science and the ability to intervene when there were dangerous products. however, all of what was said about the reviews and as our regulations and the reasonableness of that changed in 2008 when the consumer product safety improvement act went into effect. and in fact, very little of that would be present today. as a matter of fact we no longer have the option to consider risk in most of the things we do were required to write rules based on numbers that were given to us in of the cpsia but that hasn't stopped us and the regulatory, through the

regulatory process of casting a wide net including maybe more tollways and children's products for more products than phil law requires us to do to make steps ready where the testing is richer than required by the law. so while law is very difficult and it has been very hard for small businesses in particular to comply with it, we have the agency, in my opinion, gone beyond what the law has required us to do. let me just give you some idea. in the time since cpsia past we have been involved in about 50 rulemakings if you include the statement of policies notice of requirements and the accreditations and by the mechem lab accreditations are huge because any time we do a notice of requirements to be accredited within six months every product under that category has to begin

sending every component of every part of the product to a lab for the third party to stand certified based on those tests and label the products to reflect what the certifications are. so interest, while i appreciated what the representative waxman said about the company's completing, it's actually the opposite. very few of our largest companies complain. most of them make products in such large numbers the can spread their cost around and what we have done is put out of competition that smaller businesses that made things primarily in this country. those are the people that we hear from because they cannot spread their cost of the regulations over so many products. i hear so often people say yes that's the law that we passed to

decrease the number of things coming in from china or that's the law that we pass to make the big companies comply, but in fact the effect of the cost of these regulations has been the burden that has put many many small businesses out of business to leave the children's product market we have the public that has your choices than they've ever had in the past. by the way the four biggest rules are still to come. they are expected to come before december 34 store to take effect by december 31st. i thought i would share with the committee of one that i anticipate we will agree on a the majority expect it to be a majority vote and allowing the parts per million of lead in any

component of a child's product to reduce to 100 parts per million as of august 15th. this is what our economic team says about this. economic impacts are likely to occur. they have to use more expensive slow lead materials. they are going to rather than the nonconforming materials used today because this is the it in the re-engineering product to make the new materials, the cost to make it the components that are inaccessible, the increased testing costs, the increased consumer prices for the reductions in the type and quantity of the children's products available to consumers businesses that the exit in the children's private market manufacturers going out of business, reduction in the utility of products and in the devotee of products this is all for this one rule that we are about to allow for this one step down that we are about to take effect, and it says there's no anticipated benefit in health to children because of this and so

i would point out ten of the 40 small manufacturers of bicycles plus the market with the original step down we anticipate more to exit the market, and my question i guess is what sort of regulation sort of rationalization can be brought to this process. i propose many times to within the limits of the law to lessen the impact of this, and i am disappointed that we haven't done more of that at the commission. thank you. >> commissioner mcdowell? >> braking member degette and having me today. during nine years of the -- during my years of the ftc i supported policies that promote consumer choice through abundance and competition and in lieu of regulation whenever possible. i welcome today's dialogue on

the regulatory reform. 50 years ago there were only 463 pages in the fcc's portion of the code as the federal regulations. during this program americans only had a choice of three tv networks and one phone company. today over the air to become a cable tv, satellite and radio and the millions of contant suppliers and the internet offer consumers with an abundance of choices. in other words the american communications economy was far less competitive in 1961 than it is today that it operated under fewer rules. in contrast by late 1995 the portion of the sesir had grown to 2,933 pages of 4634 years earlier. as of the most recent printing of the csrl last october, it contained a mind-numbing 3,695 pages of rules. even after the congress codified the regulatory mandates with a landmark telecommunications act

as 96, the fcc still managed to add hundreds more pages of rules. to put it another way, the fcc's rules measured in pages has grown by almost 800 per cent over the course of 50 years. all while the communications marketplace has enjoyed more competition. during this same period with regulatory growth, america's gdp grew by a substantially smaller number. 357%. in short, this is one metric illustrating the government growth outpacing economic growth. to be fair, some of the rules were written deutsch to various congressional mandates and sometimes the fcc does remove regulations on its own accord or from applying various mandates in response to the forbearance petitions. but all in all the regulatory reach has grown despite the congressional attempt to reverse the trend. at the same time congress had given the ftc ample authority to deregulate the legislative intent of the key parts of the 1996 act such as sections ten,

he 11 202, 706 to name a few or to reduce the amount of regulation in the telecommunications broadcasting and information services. for instance congress ordered the fcc to section 10 of the 96 act to forebear from playing a regulation or statutory provision that is not needed to ensure telecom carriers market behavior is reasonable and not necessarily for the protection of consumers. similarly, section 11 requires the fcc to conduct reviews of telecom rules every two years to determine whether any such regulation is no longer in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition and to repeal or modify any regulation determines to be no longer necessary in the public interest. removing the on need of rolls can liberate capital currently spent on lawyers and filing fees capital spent on powerful innovations. accordingly it is my hope that the fcc stays faithful to the congress intent as embodied in

section 11 by promptly initiating a full and thorough review of every rule and not just those that apply to telecom companies but all rules that apply to any entity regulated byquququququ the coqqmmission.qmqoq?qmqo the resumption of the fcc review should be that a rule is not necessary on los we find compelling evidence to the contrary. the first set of rules i would discard of course would be the recently issued internet network management regulatory regime also known as net neutrality. as i stated many times before, those rules are necessary at best and will deter investment and badly needed next infrastructure. no evidence of the system of market failure exists to justify these overly burdensome regulations. furthermore the fcc has too many forms. to give you some examples there's form 603, form 611 come four am i 175 ka 4161 4192

177, 323, and former 396 396c i'm not sure what happened to c and d 4397 and 398 among many many others. while a few may be necessary many could be eliminated or simplified. similar repeal initiatives should be on our plate. as i noted in the speech and made the so-called doctrine is literally still codified in the see a far. the doctrine regulated political speech. political speech is core protected speech under the first amendment and the doctrine is patently unconstitutional as the fcc found in 87. chairman genachowski and from the committee that he supports removing references to the doctrine and its corollary from the sesir and intends to move forward in august. i look forward to helping him to fulfill that promise. in the same spirit as time to either eliminate the outdated newspaper broadcast in the upcoming review of the media

ownership regulations. evidence suggests the old cross-ownership ban may have caused the unintended effect of reducing the number of media voices especially newspapers and scores of american communities. overall, however, what is needed is a comprehensive and sustained effort to repeal where appropriate streamline unnecessary of david or harmful rules. all future proceedings should start with a thorough market analysis that assesses the state of competition and a sober and copyright manner. and in the absence of the market failure unnecessary regulations in the name of serving the public interest can have the perverse effect of harming consumers by inhibiting the constructive risk-taking producers investment innovation competition prices and jobs. in sum, decreasing the burdens of the owners or unnecessary regulations increases investment, spurs innovation accelerates competition lower prices creates jobs and serves

consumers. i look forward to working with all of you and in pursuit of these goals. >> thank you, welcome chairman for your statement. >> thank you, chairman stearns ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. i want to thank you all for having us here today in the coley commissioner on the review and independent agencies. we submitted false testimony that i would like to have entered into the record and i will summarize my testimony. we continually seek to streamline the regulations in order to foster competitive markets and facilitate enhanced competition to minimize the consumer cost to read implementing the statutory authority provided by the congress and committed to assisting the consumers and paying reliable, efficient and sustainable energy services of a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory market means.

fulfilling the mission of all spurring two primary goals. ensuring that rates, terms and conditions are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or a financial and promoting the development of safe, reliable and efficient infrastructure that serves the public interest. the commission has taken a continuous to take a number of steps to make certain that its regulations but the fundamental objectives set forth by congress without imposing undue burdens on the regulated entities or unnecessary costs on those entities or their customers. for example, the commissioners have taken several steps to remove barriers to entry of new businesses and technologies which facilitate the competitive marks and lower consumer cost. the commission also seeks ways to help entities particularly small ones navigate the federal regulatory process. the commission is also recently reduced burdens on applicants speeding up the process of filings and improved public access to documents. in some i support the goals of the executive order 13563.

i corrected the commission staff to conduct the review of the commission's regulations with the goal of the executive mind. this direction is consistent with commission's practice of engaging and the cost review to avoid red tape or unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue burdens on the energy industry and its consumers. thank you, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you gentlemen. commissioner mahler. welcome. >> thank you mr. chairman remember degette members of the committee, appreciate the chance to be with you today to talk about these important issues to i welcome your oversight and i will summarize my written comments. the brief history i guess the regulation has evolved at the commission and to give you three examples where i think we kind of struggle with balancing the need to ensure that our services are provided safely at fair and just rates, but also making sure that we are protecting and not unduly burdening the entities that we regulate.

the federal power commission our predecessor really came into its own after the passage of the 1935 federal power act in the 1938 natural gas act and the regulators than the commission it was tightly regulating these entities because they were monopoly providers of the services that were deemed essential. but over the decades, and particularly the last 25 years, the regulation has evolved so that more competitive forces can provide consumers with frankly where prices of better service. the scheme for the two landmark orders in the natural-gas side for 36 and 636 which we structured the pipelines and the sight orders 888 in order to 2000 to set up the regional markets and allow for open access on the transmission systems. again, these have had great benefits for consumers, but our responsibility as regulators and monitoring these markets has increased substantially since then. three areas where we

particularly spend time the first of which the reliability area of assuring the reliability of the power system. the origins which came from the walkout of the regulations came about after that but as time went on particularly it was clear that a mandatory system was going to be necessary some kind of a cop on the interested electric highway to. it took the 2003 blackout and the 2005 act and congress directed us to create a national electric reliable the organization with eight regional entities we've adopted 101 national standards, 11 regional standards, and we've had a very active enforcement process. in fact we have had 7,000 violations to date since they became mandatory in june of 2007. frankly we are struggling with

it. the role of the regional entity is because we have a bit of a backlog on the violations up to about 3200. i think the good news though is that through the direction they are working to make sure that there is a better streamlined process so we can eliminate the backlog and easily share the best practices among the amenities that we regulate on the power system. the second area related to that is with our new power of enforcement that you gave us in the 2005 energy act. you gave us the kind of major enforcement authority that we can find entities of to $1 million per day per violation with our significant finds there were criticism from the industry that we lacked transparency in the process and let priorities.

and i had to say that our office of enforcement under the urging of several of us on the commission has opened of that system so that we are much more transparent system now. we adopted in you will priorities in terms of enforcement and adopted guidelines based on the u.s. sentencing commission and have process these and policies in place that allow anyone under investigation to know at certain times that they are and gives them to certain rights other agencies give them. so we can make progress there. the 33 because it come from the pacific northwest we regulate 2500 hydropower throughout the nation. and some have complained that that process of licensing for more often rely sensing is both costly and time-consuming and that much is true. but i don't think much of that can be put on ferc. i think the law itself, the governing process is worth looking at if this is something

that inspires you because we actually i think do a good job under the current system of setting timetables but often the resource agencies don't have any consequence to missing the timetables involved. in the meantime though, i think we have tried as an agency to develop small hydropower systems through the states that are interested. we tried to open up the process to the stakeholders and developers the interested in the small hydropower development and we have come up with a pilot licensing process for the technologies of our ocean power. again, in a way through the regulations to try and encourage industry to move forward. they've been active in some of our rulemakings and perspectives are always very valuable. thank you for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you. jarman leibowitz, welcome.

>> chairman degette, dr. burgess, members of the subcommittee, let me thank you for the opportunity for a td to to appear today for my colleague bill kovacic to discuss the longstanding review program. it is -- it has been and it is a bipartisan priority for us as well as our plans for ensuring the the program continues to protect american consumers while minimizing burdens on american businesses. the ftc is announcing additional measures to strengthen the review process including an expedited schedule for reviewing rules and guides to meet the demand of the marketplace. a new streamlined form for the pre-merger filings. a new page on the web site to provide greater transparency in the public participation and reviews and assertive review of the reviews that is we are

asking stakeholders how we can make the review process even better. in that same spirit we are seeking to identify acts of congress that appear to be of little value that impose burdens on businesses particularly small businesses and the commission. before the commissioners peter to discuss the history and the nature of the rugged terrain reviews after he's finished, i will tell you a little more about what the commission is doing today to enhance and improve our approach to regulations. simply put we are building on our longstanding regulatory housecleaning efforts over the years under which we validated the rules from the era including those addressing the constitutional matters, fiberglass curtains and frosted glasses. as you know, the federal trade commission is a delightful agency with those consumer protection competition jurisdictions in broad sectors of the economy and touches the lives of a free america. we are a lot for some regions

but perform the agencies and other tools as well including rulemakings from time to time even when the congress or win additional clarity is needed in the marketplace. most of the world these corals are directors from congress because you recognized that they would be valuable to consumers and businesses alike by protecting all of us from unfair and deceptive acts of practices and by leveling the playing field so that legitimate businesses aren't at a competitive disadvantage from the bottom feeders who don't always play fair. and with that i would like to you. ..

have become out dated and delete for some were simply ineffective. to ensure that all works object is. since 1992 come with a voluntary program to examine each regulation and rule and a 10 year cycle. each or republish the schedule of review and begin the examination of each workout by that publishing the federal register notice. the notice seeks comment on continuing need for regulation or the guide and examination of its cost and benefit to consumers and businesses. we also ask whether consequent economic developments call for changes in the outright abolition. we also consider whether the measure conflicts with other

intervening state local or national legal commands. puc's comments and the results of workshops that we conduct from time to time to decide whether the continuing need for the regulatory commander guidelines and have needless burdens can be avoided and if adjustments are warranted can we start proceedings to modify or repeal the really guide. as jon mentioned, through this process, we've repeal 37 rules and guides. we have it repealed an upgrade since 2004. i think we did that get the most serious cases first. but we have undertaken modifications with respect to other since the time. when i post reviews and plays in one proceeding considering amendment to the labeling requirements for the alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles and here we are assessing how to eliminate the need for firm redundant labels demanded by different agencies. in another instance, accelerated

to review of our mechanism for mandating notification and reporting of mergers and we intend to initiate reviews of the leather marble staircase son. comments provided in this process overwhelmingly show business support for an uncovered the mechanism we fuse the moving guys themselves. at least in particular stand out as a means to reduce business burdens by what we regard to be the line that separates appropriate from inappropriate behavior. in doing so, we think we've significantly reduce the cost of complying with what we know to be the exceedingly broad general that appear in our statutes. my colleague will now explain recent measures were taken to enhance this review process and i look forward to your questions and comments later. thank you. >> thank you. as commissioner trade was explained, we've noted chairman

stearns in the statement the importance of taking costs and benefits into account a way to do that. it's critically important to a spirit all of her work including the guide with stakeholders. but earlier this year we began examining what more we could do to improve these skills to very much in the spirit of the president's executive order coming years over doing. first, as commissioner kovacic noted, we are undertaking a review of 22 rules that guide from a third of all the rules we we'd minister, ruth and indicted minister. as announced in the federal register notice today six and a review have been accelerated to take into account rapid change in the marketplace. congress romantic degette it

has 200 million -- actually no more than 200 million registered phone numbers and dave perry has called the most effective government program is the oldest man. second, federal register notice that the public to comment on the ftc's twenty-year program of reviewing its rules. as commissioner kovacic noted nevertheless ask a number of questions. for example, how often should the commission review rules and guides. how quaint modify programs to make them even more responsive to the needs of consumers and businesses. the ftc's new regulatory reform website just went live today because not everybody reads the federal register although any of you do. it serves to provide greater transparency for members of the public to understand regulatory review efforts and allows them to more easily comment on her ongoing brew reviews as well as on the ftc's process to review its rules.

it also contains links to 37 rules eliminate over the years as well as easy links resources like a schedule and a streamlined hsr premerger foreign. commission staff to identify statutes on businesses around the commission. although both may be laudable some statutes passed by congress and the track from the unofficial word. commissioner moehler alluded to this with respect to licensing issues. someone exam will is for back taxes in 2003 and it came out of the financial services committee and he required the ftc to conduct 30 separate rulemaking studies and reports. some of those obligations of course made sense. but at one point around 2005 shortly after he came to the commission, about one third to have a very financial practices staff and the folks at collector

mortgage fraud are actually spending time writing reports because they were obligated we do a congress tells us to do. we've been writing reports. we are very good at it but in fact i stash of should've been spending more time going after the bad guys preying on american homeowners. also consistent with the goal of reducing unnecessary burdens commission staff is now working on reports by statute enacting statutes themselves to divert businesses were commission racers is from our pricing were ecstatic identified suited to such reports at least preliminarily. so year after year the mandated s. not in this report has shown there is almost no concentration in the ethanol fuel market. the report doesn't appear to provide significant value to the public but it does impose burdens on small businesses because they have to respond to increase from the ftc. and so our staff -- the report be eliminated or at the least

the frequency review be reduced to every three years. additionally while the ftc doj, department of education are involved in providing scholarship scams and the ftc compiles complaints the annual report that -- about scholarship scams and the three agencies must really produce feature on the topic which is required by statute doesn't appear to ftc staff to advance any real or significant goals. so mr. chairman, through these core initiatives, were working to improve the ftc's program that will do her best going forward to working with this committee to ensure that all the regulations protect american consumers by minimizing burdens on consumers. thank you. i look for it to your questions. >> mr. kovacic commit to anything preceded by two had since we had most of the time click >> now come i don't. >> with that, i'd like to put on

the record the memorandum of february 2nd 2011 objections ordered. i understand your ranking and witty as the document evaluation of the product safety database you would like to put in. without objections ordered. chairman liebowitz, before you start my question, my staff is struck to voluntarily set to the plate and followed the series of this letter right there and i think it's interesting when you look at the letter he put on the record he set in particular such agencies talking about independent agencies are encouraged to consider undertaking retrospective analysis of the existing rules. you step up to the plate to do it if not all independent agencies had done it are identified areas that you think you have to do where you don't think you should be doing it. the question for members of congress is what would you like us to do? >> well, i think your insight

this are extremely useful enchant the public light on regulations that to you in one that need to be modified, you know, we are a very bipartisan consensus driven agents be. we try to do regulatory reviews because we know they are really, really -- >> you've identified them sued by a legislation to say. >> that would be true. commissioner mick dowell, i couldn't help but take your comments sober and clear. in fact true? said a 16% a year and that means every four and half years these regulations are doubling. it is staggering to think that it's occurring. is that a knackered explanation that regulations could possibly be doubling every four and half years based upon 8% increase for 50 years click

>> by what appear to be the case. i just put release independent agencies should step up and volunteer. obviously, obama has indicated he wants it done and he didn't include the independent agency appeared that they give you what to answer questions yes or no. but the limited amount of time i had, adler and north up yes or no. >> no. >> no. >> as you know, ccp has publicly committed to conduct a review of all existing regulations and course at the executive order? yes or no. >> as far as i'm concerned, yes. >> i have not been informed of having any review. >> each why hasn't there been a notice that commissioner nortup

would not be answered yes click >> first of all, with respect to meeting cass sunstein is a hero fine as a former academic. >> what i said wesley had begun begun a retrospective review that was temporarily suspended in 2007. as soon as chairman tannenbaum gives his back, i present we will continue. cpsc is to conduct regulatory fees passed out in recent years. >> they stopped in 2007 under at team chairman howard because the passage of the consumer product safety improvement act and not competition to resources. >> commissioner mcdowell coming to believe the reviews sec cannot on telecommunications take the place of the kind of

the fact that the president and this committee has simply asked where? >> no. will sustain your testimony you would discard upon the agency review of this regulation, is that true? i agree with you. chairman genachowski heals the proceedings as a test case for a miss. however, i believe there were some in this proceeding. commissioner mick that will come if you believe you're able to review the record in the net neutrality docket or were their opinions late into the docket that made it very difficult to review before the vote quite >> there were about 3000 pages of documentation placed in the final two or three days. >> you an opportunity to review those click >> there is opportunity, but not enough time. >> as a commissioner, when did you see that net neutrality water you voted against on december 1st 2010 and was at

the same rules proposed in october 2009 click >> there were several drafts but we got the file draft about a quarter to midnight the night before the vote. >> although the rules in december, the docket to reclassify broadband services vendor title ii remains open. i think this is surprising because we've made efforts to close other docket that the sec. do you believe this data should be closed click >> yes. >> are you worth any reason at the dhaka remains open? >> only speculation. i have no firsthand knowledge. >> chairman wellinghoff can you support the goals and direct the commission staff to conduct a review of existing regulation of golden executive order nine. why did you spend regulatory review plan to omb? >> because i believed we were subject to the executive order under omb. >> not understanding what it

said to you the spirit of the love for you to comply? >> i believe we are complained that the spirit of the law by directing mandatory review. >> i be submitted able to not? by general counsel said it's not important to staff review. >> t. believe you can make a richer set give review disputed the executive order? >> i've directed my staff to do the. my times expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my recollections of what kasdan said is the end of patent agency should comply with the spirit of the law not requirements. i'll ask you chairman liebowitz since your agent be as a paragon of virtue today. have you submitted a plan to omb? >> we have not submitted a plan?

>> -- >> that's assuming your regulatory form? >> commissioner adler, i'll see her agency it hasn't submitted a plan to omb you're doing regulatory reforms. >> that's correct. >> chairman liebowitz, something he said was very interesting to me. he talked about how a lot of the regulations that you do as a result of statute passed by congress directing you to do regulations and you gave several examples of that, right? >> yes. commissioner northrup come utah about a lot of regulations that the cpsc is promulgating a result of the statute like the lead standard meta-regulation. so mr. chairman, one thing i am concerned about is you can't

really talk about regulatory without looking at the statute and asked these agencies. and so i think there are two levels here. there is the regulations themselves, which may be overburdened some but also statutes i think we should look at. and i know chairman liebowitz you had actually come up with the list of statutes that you think so that the agencies whether independent agencies are not could also streamline their regulations, correct? >> that's correct. >> would you like to make copies subatomic at the statues have been the purview of this committee that ways to fix them so they can reduce the burden of regulation? >> it sounds like a bipartisan effort and we begrudge do that. >> for the rest of the commissioners who are here i would ask for a yes or no answer. would you be willing to host as a similar list of statute to

your agency jealousy thing could be streamlined to the regulatory process can be streamlined to ensure adler? >> i have. >> the above to get a copy of that. >> chairman? >> commissioner. >> my list is the famous johns. >> okay, great. this is a good effort down here at the end of this table. and one i wanted to ask you commissioner mcdowell because he listed off a number of regulation, numbers of regulation. i don't think that you think first of all, are those regulation but i don't know by her, i day-old duplicate it for a necessary regulations, the ones he listed? he listed some different sections. you can read a whole bunch of regulations. >> dissections are statutory sections give us the power to

deregulate on the road. >> no, no the forms. >> just because there is a form, doesn't mean they are per se -- >> now, i didn't imply that. >> the number of forms are a necessary in your view? >> not all of them. >> aloysius kind of a figure of speech? >> my testimony speaks for itself. >> here is my question. have you compiled a list of regulations for your agency that you think are duplicative or overly burdensome? >> yes ma'am. his senate testimony. not the complete list -- >> could you get is your complete list? along with our brand-new member from colorado, mr. gartner, my neighbor to the north, we are kind of develop bipartisan legislation. to be honest and regulatory

form is not a partisan issue. nobody wants or overly burdensome. i guess i would ask everybody from all of these agencies, as well as a list of statutes that you think lead to overly burdensome regulation your duty to give us a list of regulations that your agency or overly burdensome, that would be helpful, too. would you be willing to do that? >> i'm speaking only for myself but for myself yes. >> is part of my testimony, but it also previously sent to the hill. >> if you could get back to her staff, that be great. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> mr. moeller. >> we will go with a limited regulatory views pretty rigorously. >> thankthank you very much. >> gentleman from texas mr. burton is recognized for five minutes.

>> i would stipulate all individuals are paragons of because they are such a two d. paragon. i think we need to repeat -- this is kind of a hearing and unusual in that this executive order we are asking you folks to comment on explicitly excludes you. as we all know in washington not to commissioners and chairman voluntarily comply with things they don't have to. >> those of us who have been around a little bit understand that. so my first question is why should this committee to end the absent the statutory language that would force compliance with something similar to the

executive order. should we pass some sort of statutory requirement that the president says this executive order? or should we let this sleeping dog lie? >> let's try chairman petrini. >> thank you a minister burden. i don't have any specific recommendations. they think as i've indicated in my testimony, we are going to comply in the spirit of it and i think our agencies as an economic agent t., that we institute, do in fact take into account whether research just and reasonable and services and we also provide the industry with an opportunity to fully comment on the speculation and the regulations are burdensome

based on comments and information they gather. so i don't have any specific recommendations for you. >> mr. leibowitz. >> with the spirit of the executive order, we go beyond it because they think only four of our rules of would be sorted within red flag for me to review several think i hear it but i also it's important to preserve the independence of agencies too. as you can see agencies provide for having members of not the president's party, agencies as a sort of institutionalized matter provide checks and balances in their independent voices. and so, i understand what you are saying because you believe the executive order has a lot of good things and we agree. >> what the president says is for not sure he's doing it. what he says he wants to do, we

think secret being. >> you're going to say to reporters. to the decree in general, but the church is you're not going to do anything. should i get with mr. gatz and mr. stearns and put together a bipartisan bill that make the requirement? >> letters for two commissioner kovacic. >> commissioner bart and i like to chorus that will make do with that compels us to do. i was a junior casey and learned that the ftc for the first time in 1879 and i think it has think it has been in the dna of the agency internally, probably because of our large team of economists to do this kind of introspective work, as long as i've known the agency. but emphasize that i think what

would be very good is two things, first for us to have perhaps a more frequent conversation inside insight is with yourself about what we do. in 2008, 2000 we did a comprehensive self-study by regency in benchmark ourselves counterparts overseas. we talked extensively with counterparts at the federal state government. get a substantial assessment of what we redoing. i think it would be helpful on one friend to have a congressman speak about measures we do take that aren't obliged. in the second as if you have mentioned. >> i've got 20 seconds left and i have one more question. >> the other is in the design of legislation about the burdens exposed. >> i went to last commissioner gallo. i cannot ask him some questions. not the hearing, with the

stipulation regulating the internet under title ii is still pending at the sec. do you have any information for us, what chairman genachowski intensity with? is he going to withdraw it or what is your view? >> just to be clear, under title ii, i don't have any idea what the reasoning might be. >> don't you think each to redraw? >> i do. >> thank you, mr. chaiman. >> the next speaker on this site is mr. green. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. first i want to take the opportunity to thank all of our commissioners for being here. those who have been on the committee, our colleague from kentucky do on every day are

important in ensuring our citizens, particularly consumer protection. but it's very important what we do in the sec. mr. leibowitz, you express on that protection rules, regulation promulgated to help protect privacy online. can you please tell us more about this rule and does it ensure that children are protected while using the internet? >> is a bipartisan piece of legislation that set of this committee. are we also understand that the internet has changed and in technology is changed to a children use the internet dramatically in the last two years. that's when we moved up a regulatory review by five years. and so we work with

stakeholders. we put out a notice of inquiry and we will have proposed improvements and draft legislation. we take comments again hopefully within the next two weeks by the end of the summer. >> just as an example, there's a lot of concern about agency regulation. there's so much of what you do is in response to the legislation, whether it's new legislation or previous legislation. this is a good example of a rule that frankly is a father or grandfather now. i can't possibly monitor what my grandchildren may be doing on the internet, but we do need to have protection from other than just the family. >> your told result were younger, you should be able to give consent to have your personal information go to companies on the internet. you need to have parental consent is a really good one. that asserted the bedrock of the

past. >> some of us might encourage each do that. >> beyond the safety such that we've done created, private safety works on manufacturers or remove dangerous projects from the market. mr. rather we have the potential to save lives? >> it does and i believe we save many lives. >> for example the ftc against consumer fraud and enforcement powers. >> all the time. >> ms. leibowitz your company and issued a 46 court cases to protect rights of consumers. how viable is that enforcement action? >> we are principally enforcement agency. we do rules mostly when you tell us to. whether those do is go to court

and to stop people engage in unfair methods of competition. the protect privacy, mortgage scams. that's what we do. >> the lawsuit to file could have real impact on individual lives. is that correct? >> yes. i can redress if we win a case. >> said there is a positive byproduct of agencies issuing regulations enforcing regulations on what congress has. >> absolutely. >> mr. mcdowell, i was pleased that the fc announced the commission reply and is important is as comprehensive as possible. i'm looking forward to seeing the streamlining which i am sure commissioners are thought to have. given a constant changing during competition do you agree the

sec should be diligent in reviewing or eliminating regulations that no longer protect the public interest? >> absolutely in a comprehensive way. >> our annual review requirement is the commission's major tool to accomplish this come is that correct? >> only for telecom companies. not information service providers, et cetera. >> do you believe the biannual report should be admitted to include other entities? >> what is your recommendations? >> yes, senate testimony but i reiterated. >> all the back maintain. >> pajama man from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. >> let me first start by thanking jon leibowitz. first of all, i like to play between the two of you because it kind of signals you work with

both sides and mr. kovacic you're telegraphing or telling us they do to actually work together and i really appreciate that. i think that is the way and america expects the region these two were. so i went to thank you for that. jon, you're doing a good job. so i like picture actually set up for this. >> there is no coming here. i like that you are already attacking assigning dean of regulations that are not very useful in the purpose. so good job. that's exactly what my bill in a different committee wants every agency. it is to provide the flexibility

commissioner north. because we can sit here and say good job uncreated but it is amazing to me that we are sitting here talking about icicles and atvs and large cars trucks that, you know, six, seven and eight euros play with and donate. yet, we are regulating. so you have to admit mr. adler, there's some absurdity to the law. >> i think congress got the library. which you talk about is the mandate that the commission imposed. but there is always portions of the law. the issue you raised is one of those that we are actually taking a look. >> in regard to the absurdity of congress' mandate, by the way, i list this is one of those for

that if i had to take that, we have really partnered on this one to make it a better law. so do you guys have specific requests for support we should change that? >> let me just say if i am there, i wasn't, but i can imagine that he would have voted for the love. a search and expect it would have. when i was confirmed by the senate, i read the love it seemed like such a good love. i was supportive. so many of the senators of the confirmation hearings that we want you to use all the flexibility we gave you to rationalize this law. we believe that icicles and atvs and scooters goes way beyond those two, curbing them out makes people happy. but like you say, trucks can play with the axles. if a band, what good are they? but the problem is when you

try -- when we try to find flexibilities, there just hasn't been three out of four is going to take a change in the law. the discouraging part is they can't seem to agree how sweeping a change they would support, but we desperately need -- >> to a the flexibility and for example third-party testing? there was an incident when this bill was developed by a toy manufacturer that manufactured china, that perhaps there was accusations that penthouse was not correct. if you are a third-party testing to be found at your end house testing is inaccurate, but do it on a 10 person company in omaha, nebraska on t-shirts on every size in every color. you have the flexibility?

>> no, we don't have flexibility. >> it is in the area. in fact there are faster ways to enforce the law coming in from overseas in 2008. i would give the commission liability -- the flexibility to require where they think there is risk and it will be effective to them for third. it would make a huge difference in the cost of this. because as you say, when they have two third-party test every single individual, when they have to then do the elites, when they have to do the toy standard standard it's extremely expensive. >> one quick point on that. do you guys trying to team data for example when the third-party testers are telling a small company that prints motorcycles on t-shirts that

asking that they test the cumulative effects of 10 t-shirt of the same color, do you ask to produce one piece of evidence that a child is eaten 10 t-shirt? >> the problem here if there is a dot of blue paint on not and not blue paint to test i will value i have pushed for a component part testing, allowing somebody and i think we're going to pass this and this is the flexibility i think is probably the most flexible regulation we had, where you can take blue point and test it. but when you talk about rights, for example that 141 parts to

them in every part -- every time you change the shipment of paddles, you have to have a new test for that. then you have to check the label so it reflects the component that was used. >> your time has expired. this young lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i think we all agree that it's important for regulatory agencies to be efficient and mindful of the impact on regulations on businesses. i think we all agree. i hope negotiate this bill. i'm very proud of the legislation. but henry waxman introduced legislation that would do us some of the unintended consequences. i think we as a community to take another look at legislation and i know the commission would be willing.

that's not true mr. adler? on behalf of ms. tenenbaum we have to look at that. but to go back to risk-based assessments coming out so we had before. what we have found is that why we regulate and that is because time and time again industry has shown that they are going to police themselves and that we need to do it. one of the issues is the industry-standard. read a press with the attorney general in illinois, where the crib standard went into a fax and i congratulate all of you on that. although i have to say i was disappointed to the press release that went out that we didn't give people enough time when of course we said earlier

you wish it had to to affect the next day so that parents could be sure when we put our kids to bed or grandchildren that they're going to be safe. so let me ask you, mr. adler, do you consider the standard to be an example of a victory for the consumer protection improvement act? >> i think it's one of the finest things that's been done under the improvement act. the involuntary risktakers are putting grapes have to be the safest place in the homes because for long periods of time with no supervision and says we have the most trenchant safety standard in the world. it's a magnificent achievement i commend the congress for direct. >> he did give some places that might have crib some time to

comply is that not true? >> i'm delighted to respond to the issue crib some time to comply, is that not true? >> i'm delighted to respond to the issue crib some time to comply, is that not true? >> i'm delighted to respond to the issue crib some time to comply, is that not true? >> i'm delighted to respond to the issue. we had another group if it please, please do not give more time. we are complying creeps and we are prepared to sell them right now. >> ra. i want to mention on the database. i have an op-ed from a gentleman in new jersey on his daughter was injured by a raping 2007 called the man and asked if they had questions about the crib and was told no, there weren't any. but actually found out they repeat you for reports to similar problems. fortunately, his daughter was not hurt. that. so mr. adler, the public information database was created because previously manufacturers would not and cpsc cannot share

life-saving information to consumers. is that correct? >> the database is the consumer product safety act you >> to think it is actually serving the function of taking consumers more aware? >> it is. i might point out that it is modeled after database at the traffic safety administration. ours has more due process is they need that and if they balanced piece that provides proper attention to disclosure with the rest of manufacturers to make sure information is correct. >> do you think that congress should force the consumer product decommissioned to do a full cost analysis in the time it takes to protect children no matter how dangerous the products are? >> the congress with no

attention to the economic impact congress said when we regulate with respect to children that we need to follow the dictates of the regulatory flexibility act. one of things i like is that is focused on former bulls small business. it is the group we are supposed to make specific findings with respect to trying to protect our most vulnerable consumers. >> audio back to two seconds i have. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you gentlelady. dr. burgess, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. it's good to see you here. it's amazing he got confirmed by the senate, so congratulations on that. quite an accomplishment. i apologize for being late. read us a committee going on simultaneously. can you give us an idea of the scope of the effect of the

retail industry on the crib and that is now gone into effect? i realize the commissioner benefit is not necessary. still -- >> on to say first about the regulatory analysis we do is like checking a box. sometimes as deep aircraft. sometimes it's a page. there are small businesses that would be affect it. but the senate of business but we go right ahead. there is no requirement that would be good. what happened with the create standard this week issued its and reconsidered at the request of manufacturers how long it would take to get -- to get the new qualifying creeps third-party tested it into the market. six months is decided. we didn't really think about retailers. there was one sentence that we thought three to six month was

enough. unfortunately, it takes longer to get them tested. but they tend to get into retail stores, some of them the orders they place last november arrived a week before the new standard took effect. they were not third-party tested and so they were junk to them. how many? well, one group of retailers that did the survey had 17,000 of them. we know they called five not our biggest stories. they had 100,000 as of the first of june. that constitute a million dollars worth of materials that will have to be thrown away. and these are not trap site created. these are not even creeps are almost identical to the standards. they have been third-party tested are certified. the new crib standard that win

in 2009th the basis of our crib standard to let me just say, if those are safe why would we allow daycare centers the motel, hotel industry boosters two years? it is because we did not believe they ran safe. >> at the ballot question. winter of 2000 name with no thought to my personal safety, i took a trip and looked at the testing facility. it is remarkable. >> we have a new one out. three weeks ago. >> i was struck -- the folks they were working diligently and quite inventive and innovative. i actually took a few things away. i'll never forget sitting in the press conference in the

motorcycle a couple years ago. a blond boy about 12 result in full for killian said mr. congressman, if you let it ride my bike, i promise i won't eat the battery when it finished. that is the level of absurdity. >> this testimony has been fascinating. talking about the deep cpac is really fabulous. but that is all changed because of the acp saa in compliance with requirements unrelated to race. for years the agency was risc-based, worked with voluntary standards committee, which is very important because projects emerge. the voluntary standards to keep up with these revelations. anytime we didn't think they were strong enough with the

right to intervene in the dead as my colleague pointed out. >> had to ask her friend a question on the hco. there is a health care lot to find that cause some of those grief. the new countable care organization we came through. did you participate in the regulation? >> well, we participated -- it's principally from cns. >> when i get the briefing, we have one guy from federal trade commission's. >> maybe two for the federal trade commission among from the department of justice. their draft guys for taking comments. can i do say one other thing an alternate over to you? we believe it critically important, not regulation. so what we're trying to do what the limitations they are brave new world.

13. but what choice do is make sure competition principles remain. >> you get exemptions to major league baseball, national football league. but here's the deal. the 21st century health care model, started the previous administration continued the cms and now we have an acl rule the work in actuality. the rule -- he took some work in this and rendered it invaluable in theory. >> book, one of the reasons for a draft guidance and again, so maybe competition portion. one of the reasons we meet with all stakeholders is we want toñ make sure to the extent there is enough take is the notion you÷ñ pick up vertical efficiencies by putting together different doctor practices, testing in a hospital is not a bad one.

want to make sure you don't have one dominant provider so soaks up all the efficiencies geared >> you give a dominant provider saddest. >> at this time we cannot review. but i hear what you're saying. >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you on mr. chairman. i want to also add my thanks to commissioners for being here. seems like the agencies you represent have been undergoing reform. and even though you're not under the executive order, you've really gone beyond what you had been doing to keep in spirit with the regulatory executive order and i commend you for that. i sat on the small business committee for about 10 years. each of you are covered are the regulatory flexibility act.

so, you are required to looking at the impact of regulations on small business reviews. i was going to ask commissioner subfloor about the effect of ms. pucci friday said it's not as effective as the other commissioners come that the regulatory flexibility act does not doing nothing to protect small businesses. >> i don't agree with my colleague about that. i think especially with respect to the impact of regulatory flexibility act and her agency has been a very good provision. i was just reviewing section six 04 regulatory flexibility act into me and it is a smaller but focused cost benefit analysis and something the commission has done very conscientious way. >> today misinterpret what he said quite >> no comments often just a paragraph in a long world.

and even if we find it will impact small businesses it does every player has to decide it is still worth going forward with any changes to our rules. we had no impact on the rules and very few. does anyone else have this experience is? >> i find it to be ruthless. the appellate courts agree there's really nothing the courts can do to make agencies change their rules based on our effects. >> would be very disappointing. it seems that most agencies have good experience? >> i think the effect in focusing attention on things that are important, but their number of other things that i tended to to be more significant

from within and we be glad to share this with you at your pleasure. >> thank you. >> and what i've been hearing is most of the commissions have gone beyond what's required and i appreciate that. commissioner mick towle, you read a letter to chairman genachowski offering recommendations on reforming it to be more transparent. and from prior testimony today we have learned chairman genachowski is proactively implemented some of those changes to facilitate your suggested reform. it has improved external communications by creating a more friendly website which includes providing the latest string of public workshops and meetings. do you think this has enhanced public participation accesses the activities? >> this is a bit controversial. depends on which you ask. >> you don't think it's enhanced

click >> in general, chairman genachowski is taking center street steps on an ad hoc basis but it makes you more reform. >> the sec is made effort to include having more than 85 staff fled public forums and reinvigorating advisory committees. do you think these have increased increase participation? >> absolutely. >> the national guard and plan will discuss potential reform for the universal services. do you think those workshops have been helpful? >> i have, certainly. >> although it is not subject to president took on this regulatory order, the fcc initiated their look back process, which also included in this statue. according to letter chairman genachowski has resulted in agencies resulting in 49 regulations and identified more

than necessary data collection requirements as possible in the nation is? >> i haven't seen the list. >> sounds reasonable. >> mainly data collection. the proceedings under section 11 initiative is focused on data collection, although it is generally widgeon there. but to the thrust of the data collection is not a rules that apply to seduce regulated. >> our information is that 49 regulations and identified 26 of the necessary data. it seems to me the fcc's current leadership has been successful in implementing ideas and i look forward to working with caring more for the commission and their continued focus and exchange of ideas that improve the work of our government. my time is that. >> the gentleman from

california mr. bilbray. >> mr. adler can be brought up the issue of trying to ensure we have enough safe cribs in the world as you say. what percentage of the critics on the market in the united states have elevated up forms were made of the hard material wood, plastic steel? >> i don't know the answer. >> would it be fair to say the overwhelming majority of elevated platforms are made of hard material? >> i think that makes sense. >> wouldn't you agree that any platform or material made parts have a child you have a potential for injury because dropping off of the platform because senate tvd may end up meaning in packs with the hard material, so there is a risk. >> that's an excellent point. it's addressed to what is the unreasonable risk, but i don't think that would make a fatality free zone. >> that's the point.

what is the reasonable level? because it. say that because we do not require all cribs to be on the ground, we do not require all submitted inflated material. it is not the safest thing to me. i think that is the determining factor, would you agree? >> i would absolutely agree. but we make the cribs that are produced in the united states to save this within the fatalities we think. >> i just think -- i appreciate that these elected officials or public officials. it is reasonableness that is a determining factor in that is where the judgment issue has to come down. >> mr. mcdowell committee recently discovered the so-called fairness doctrine almost a quarter of a century after it was abandoned, do you think it is reasonable that a federal agency has basically

misinformation if not some people might see the light green light of the fairness doctrine on your books? keeping its reasonably quarter of a century after regulation is unfair is still stated as being part of the process? >> i don't think it's reasonable to language remains on the books. >> what are we doing to make sure there's not this mistake throughout the regulatory guidelines. for the public and business community and find out -- >> if the commission is not as not to enforce the rule, should disappear from the book. >> let's get to the fact that the fcc has taken nearly 12 months. i'll say this. i spent decades in regulatory agencies. i understand how tough it is when you're in a regulatory agency of taking legislation making it practical.

when your decision-making delayed further 12 month, you know, there is nothing on the books that require us or require you to make a decision on what is a reasonable time. don't you think -- is there anything to make you make a decision in less than 12 months? >> certainly it helps us with effective law, but even that sometimes is not observed good video competition report every year, the last senate voted on one was 2007. >> okay, in other words, we need to basically take them out but also have enforcement. i'll just tell you we abandoned any federal funding just so we could avoid the regulatory oversight. we built the system on time because we didn't take federal funding and i think it is one of the things that people